Skip to main content

Useless laws in Ireland? Why only here?

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Useless laws in Ireland? Why only here?

In some parts of Dublin, there is a problem with motorised youths on footpaths and in parks. They use quadbikes and small motorbikes (nicknamed “scramblers”) and in 2016 a total of 71 people got injured and in 2017, 62 people suffered injuries, Now I have to be honest and admit that I don’t really care about injuries to people that drive them. It is only injuries to people that are hit by them that count.

You would think that if an illegal vehicle is used (the quadbikes and motorbikes have no insurance and pay no tax), the gardai would make sure that the bikes will be impounded and the drivers will be charged and punished. You would think that! But that is not what is happening!

Instead it emerged this week that Gardai are told NOT to pursue quad bikes and it also emerged that Irish laws are not so clear on what a street is.

I can’t get my head around this: There are around 190 countries in this world and there are many countries (mainly in Europe) where the legal system is quite similar to the system in Ireland. If ANY one of these countries has effective laws and effective law enforcement in ANY area that Ireland can’t get under control, why do our lawmakers not just copy the laws that others have put in place?

We constantly hear of loop holes for drunken drivers. Now there is a problem with quadbikes and motorbikes and there are many other areas as well where the Irish laws are ineffective. Is it that our law makers are just not smart enough or why can’t they get it sorted?

Here is an example of a story that shows the ineffectiveness of laws and law enforcement.

 

Irish, Justice, Society, , , ,

Dublin Edition of Monopoly

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Dublin Edition of Monopoly

There has been a Dublin Edition of Monopoly since the 70s, but a brand new edition has been revealed and there are some changes to the previous version. Originally Ailesbury Road in Dublin 4 (not Aylesbury in Tallaght!) was the top spot, this has changed and now the top place is the GPO. Ailesbury Road’s reputation as the most exclusive area has indeed gone down in recent years, but the GPO as the top spot is not necessarily a good replacement!

And for some odd reason, Molly Malone is the cheapest place in Dublin according to the new Monopoly. This is also incorrect, Molly Malone is neither in a dodgy nor a cheap neighbourhood.

It seems that the creators of the new Monopoly tried to pack as many Dublin locations onto the board irrespective of their fit! Monopoly always differentiated between expensive and cheap, but if all places that have a high recognition factor are in expensive areas, then some incorrect categorisation is bound to happen.

Do mistakes like that dilute the Monopoly message? I think so! But imagine a really poor area of Dublin had been chosen for the lowest priced field? People in that area wouldn’t be too impressed!

RTE writes about the new game here.

Dublin, Economy, Odd, Society, , ,

To Repeal or Not to Repeal? There can only be ONE answer!

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
1 Comment
To Repeal or Not to Repeal? There can only be ONE answer!

It took me a LONG time to write this article. Not because I don’t know what to think, but because I found it difficult to create a readable piece of written work because it is such a complex subject and my thoughts and opinions are similarly complex.

Let me start with the simple (or not!) part and the part that already might stop you from reading anything else after it unless you are the type of person who has the ability to disagree with another opinion and still can continue to listen/read for another bit to understand why.

The simple part is this: There is only ONE answer that a democratically-minded person should give to the question “To Repeal or not to repeal” and that is a clear and loud YES. But the next bit will surprise you maybe: The reason for the YES should have NOTHING to do with abortion or no abortion in the first place.

It is “YES” for me without hesitation, but I dislike the idea of abortions! So my opinion is not straight forward and I (partially) disagree with both camps that fight over the 8th Amendment Referendum.

Let me explain:
The Referendum is a decision about a clause in the Irish constitution and without a shadow of a doubt the clause about the protection of unborn life has NO place in a constitution. The New Oxford American Dictionary says “A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.” In such a document, clauses like the 8th Amendment have no place! The laws of a country are there to cover what happens if you steal, or murder or do other possibly illegal things and that is where any regulation about abortion should be. The constitution is there to explain what the role of the parliament is and what the president does and how the state is organised, nothing else.

For that reason the 8th Amendment should have never been added to the constitution and it is high time that it will be removed.

BUT IT OBVIOUSLY DOESN’T END THERE

Unfortunately (but somewhat understandably) the issue for most voters will not be decided by the suitability of a certain clause in a constitution but by the further effect this clause will have and by their personal opinion. That’s where it gets messy.

After the YES vote at the referendum, we should have a discussion about abortion and that should lead to the relevant laws about it. It should be an open discussion, but that won’t happen. And for that reason the referendum will regrettably not be about the constitutional amendment but about the law that might take its place.

If you like that piece of law, you will vote YES and if you don’t like it then you will vote NO to block the ability to have a open and democratic discussion. I think that approach is wrong but I can understand why it is taken by the NO side.

WILL A NO STOP ABORTIONS

One question we need to ask is if a NO vote will stop abortions and I think it is 100% clear that it will not stop them! So voting NO can only be driven by trying to keep the lid on it. But if someone votes NO he/she will not stop women to go to the UK to get an abortion and oddly this seems to be something the NO side can live with. It shocks me, to be honest. A consequent NO voter should insist on making abortions illegal and put women in jail of they terminate the pregnancy. Anything else is a cowardly escape from a hugely problematic issue.

I would never be in support of criminalising the termination of a pregnancy and – in all honesty – I can imagine situations in my past where I didn’t have to, but where I would have been prepared to seriously consider suggesting an abortion if I had been the other 50% contributor to a pregnancy.

I would go even one step further and would claim that a YES will not cause a significant increase of abortions. Women that decide to have an abortion (and don’t think ANY woman is thrilled about having an abortion. Maybe thrilled about not being pregnant anymore, about not about going through the procedure.)

So if abortions won’t get stopped and if there might not even be an increase in abortions then a NO vote is even less effective.

TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY OR NOT?

But that leads me to the big question of what my opinion is about the early termination of a pregnancy? Be warned, though, it is not simple!

I am between both camps and feel unrepresented by either of them. I am in favour of the option of an abortion in certain circumstances and at the same time I feel very sad when I hear that in one year up to 190,000 wonderful children could have been born in the UK but they never got a chance to see this wonderful world. So I would love it if abortions were not necessary.

The overriding opinion I have is that nobody should be forced to be pregnant and nobody should be forced to end a pregnancy! There should be help available – good and positive and constructive help – in all situations where a woman has concerns about her pregnancy and the possible termination of it.

ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS

If the pregnancy was caused by a rape, if the baby has genetical abnormalities or if there is a medical reason that puts the mother at risk or that means the baby has limited chances to survive, the mother should be helped making the decision in a neutral, compassionate and non-influencing way. It ultimately is the mother (ideally with involvement of the father, but ideal situations don’t always happen!) who has to and should be allowed to decide if she wants the continuation or end of a pregnancy. If there is a medical situation then ALWAYS the survival of the mother should have priority.

Abortion as a method of birth control is a aspect I am very uncomfortable with, BUT I can see why even in these situations a mother will decide to end the pregnancy and I am not so arrogant to think that I know better or I or we as society should tell her what she should think or feel! So I am in favour of the option of abortion, but I think there should ALWAYS neutral (!) advise be given before the final decision.

If an abortion is a frequently used method for birth control though, I think our society and educational system has failed badly because there are other methods of birth control that we have to educate better about. An abortion should be the very very last option.

BABY OR NO BABY?

I know the difficult question about what this “thing” is in a woman’s womb has to be considered but it doesn’t make things easier. I think that it doesn’t matter if it is a foetus or a baby, it is definitely a form of life. And an abortion is the ending of life! Yes, I said it! And I am still not moving to the NO camp. Why is that? It is because I am hypocritical!! :-O But it gets worse: Most of us are hypocritical and we have not much of a problem with it!!

We are also arrogant! We think that us human beings rule this world and we should be allowed to do whatever we want (or whatever our moral source allows us to do). Have you ever killed a fly? Or a spider? You killed life that was created by God or the creator or whatever you believe is the source of being. Do you eat meat? Slaughter is brutal murder for our own pleasure! But we only SOME animals! The animals we feel are at the lower end of the intelligence hierarchy we kill. Cows and pigs. But would you eat dog or horse? NOOOO! HOW horrible! Why is that horrible? Why is it ok to kill and eat fish, but dolphins must be protected? We are soooo hypocritical!!

I am not suggesting that foetus is an animal, but most of us are not consequent. We make up stories and justifications. Oh and by the way, BOTH sides make up stories and justifications!

I admit that I am hypocritical and that’s why I am saying that I wished abortions were not necessary, I ALSO am of the opinion that we can’t close our eyes to medical, criminological, genetical AND societal reasons that could make it impossible for a woman to bring this baby she is carrying into this world. And if I am a hypocrite, what right do I have to judge her? We should help women to be able to see that there are options and that abortion is not the ONLY way in a stress situation, but we have to stop being arrogant a**holes who know better!

For that reason I am saying there is only ONE answer and that answer has to be YES.

By the way, if you are strongly against abortions then you can do something: Help organisations or even start an organisation that helps to reduce abortions. Work on making adoptions easier! Help people that provide financial and practical support to women in crisis so that maybe they will be able to consider bringing this baby in this world. Don’t be a person who votes NO and then does NOTHING! You are not saving lives! Vote YES and then start saving lives!!!

Elections, Irish, Society, , , , ,

Eurovision and the National Pride

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Eurovision and the National Pride

It is with some surprise that the Irish entry at the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, sung by Ryan O’Shaughnessy, made it to the final on Saturday. The song was not horrible and the singer is good, so there was no explicit reason for expecting that it wouldn’t qualify. But as we know from years and years of Irish failures, the quality of a song or singer is not always the most important thing.

So on Saturday the following countries will compete:
From the second heat Serbia, Moldova, Hungary, Ukraine, Sweden, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Slovenia, Netherlands will make it to the final on Saturday and from the first heat there will be Austria, Estonia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Israel, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Albania, Finland and Ireland. These 20 will be joined by the already seated bigger countries Spain, Portugal, UK, Germany, France and Italy.

So far so good, But there was one thing that I found even more surprising than the Irish entry making it to the final: It was that suddenly and immediately a National Pride seemed to kicked in.

RTE2 showed a celebrating Ryan O’Shaughnessy holding up an Irish flag and the text read “@Ryan_Acoustic summing up how the whole country is feeling right now:” And a RTE News item on their website had the headline “Nation shares pride at Eurovision qualification”. Comedy Actor Rory Cowan wrote “… Brilliant result. … Ireland are back”. [Should that not be “Ireland IS back”??? :-O ] Musician Brendan Murray commented “Well done @Ryan_Acoustic and all the team! It’s times like this I’m proud to be Irish now bring her home son!”. He didn’t explain thought who “she” from “bring HER home” was :-P

So there were some outbursts of national pride there indeed. But is that maybe just a few people playing to their audience? Or is it a widespread feeling of National Pride triggered by the somewhat odd Eurovision event?

Let’s see how it works out on Saturday. The competition final will start at 20:00 and can be seen on RTE TV.

Events, Irish, Society, , ,

The Belfast Trial and the Consequences

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
The Belfast Trial and the Consequences

This post was first published in the “This is Odd!” section of the DublinEventGuide.com on 31 March 2018, hence some references to that and also the spam filter circumvention as described below.

———————————————————————–

First of all, please note that I can’t risk using the word ra pe in its proper spelling, because otherwise spam filters will not let this mail through, so instead I will use “Rp” wherever that word should appear. I am sure you will be able to work with that.

I have to admit that writing about the Rp Trial in Belfast is not a cheery subject in the slightest and you could say that it has nothing to do with events or with Dublin, but first of all the “This is Odd!” section in the Dublin Event Guide is an opinion section where I don’t just stick to Dublin or event themes and secondly, I think what happened and the emotional response to it is just to huge to ignore it.

BUT, I don’t intend to discuss the trial and its outcomes. Instead there is something much more important and that is what will we take from it and how will we change our attitudes going forward.

A quick reprise: Two years ago at a sort of party, a then 19 year old women experienced something that she called Rp (see first paragraph to understand what “Rp” means). The four men that were involved – and yes there was more than one – claimed all was consensual. The trial was done in front of a jury and after 8 days that jury decided that the men were not guilty and at the same time they implied with that that the women was telling lies.

The result is that the men walk free, the women involved not get any form of emotional “compensation” for having to go through the trial and the majority of women observing feel (rightly) that not much is done to protect or support them if they every had to experience Rp and therefore many women would probably never report it. A really bad outcome.

I didn’t follow the trial in detail and therefore don’t know all that was said by all sides, but I did read the What’s App and text message exchange between the four men and just based on that, I judge them as chauvinistic low lifes who definitely are capable of what they were accused of. There should be consequences for them, but unfortunately I can also see why the trial did result in an acquittal.

We have heaps of examples where very clear trials came to very unexpected results. OJ Simpson’s murder trial in 1994 is a perfect example. Everyone expected that he would be found to be the murder of his wife, but he was acquitted by a jury. Another example is the trial against Oscar Pistorius in South Africa. He shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in 2014 and claimed that he thought she was an intruder. Nearly everyone was convinced that he is guilty of murder, but a judge sentenced him to just 5 years in prison. And there are lots more cases as shocking and surprising as these. A lawyer friend of mine always said that “in court and at sea you are in god’s hand”. I would say “in court and at sea everything and anything can happen” and very very often it is not justice that is the result of a trial.

Many think that a trial in front of a jury is fairer, I totally disagree! I would rather have some professionals to decide my fate if I am innocent, but if I am guilty I would love to have a jury. Jury’s are randomly selected, but heavily influenced and influencable individuals with no expertise in assessing evidence and judging a difficult scenario. And if they have the SLIGHTEST doubt they will judge against the accusation. This is what happened here, in my opinion.

The outcome might have acquitted the men, but there is a HUGE difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”. The jury might have decided that they are not guilty of Rp, but that doesn’t mean AT ALL that they are innocent. Their Social Media/mobile phone exchanges shows that they are despicable chauvinistic low lifes and unfortunately the acquittal will turn them worse. I read that they now will sue people of libel (damaging their reputation).

The trial outcome is what it is, but what should we do now? How should we react to it?

In my opinion, the four men should be kicked out of the Irish and Ulster Rugby team with immediate effect just based on the Social Media/mobile phone exchange alone. This is not the way men should be allowed to talk about women and the sports teams have a responsibility to make that VERY VERY clear. We can’t have young people looking up to scum like that.

Secondly, we have to make clear that this one case does not mean that all other cases will be decided in the same way. Rosa Parks who – as a black woman – refused to give up her seating in the white section of a bus was the trigger for a societal change. Maybe or hopefully the victim from the Belfast Rp Trial will influence today’s society’s attitude to chauvinists and male low lifes as well!

And thirdly, I think we have to make a significant change in the current education of society. In the context with the #MeToo campaign and for education going forward, the “No means No” principle emerged and is quoted in many places also in connection with this trial. I feel this is a totally inappropriate principle. Sure it is better than what many women have experienced until now, but the only principle we should base our education (for all ages!) on is “Only YES gives you the right”.

It’s like this: It is not just a RED light that tells you to stop at a traffic light. A yellow light also doesn’t give you the automatic right to race ahead. ONLY the green light allows you to proceed. Our focus has to be on making clear that only a clear YES will give the right to proceed. And if it is not a CLEAR “Yes”, for example because alcohol is involved, then there can’t be a “I assumed it was ok to go ahead”.

Oh and two other things: I know one man, a Rugby fan, who celebrated the acquittal of the four and who wrote on Facebook that he knew they were innocent and he can’t wait until they are “in the green jersey again”. Sorry, Sir, you have NO clue how people that you don’t know personally behave behind closed doors and your ignorance and arrogance is disgusting.
And lastly: There are good guys out there who would NEVER talk like that about women and who would never treat them in a disrespectful way. I know PLENTY of them! Ladies, please don’t assume that we all are scum! But also, guys, if you hear other guys talk about women like the four from Belfast OR if you come across any disrespectful behaviour towards women or anybody else, please be a man and stand up for the badly treated person!

Elsewhere, Society, , , , , ,
 
Malcare WordPress Security